Universal Nature, counteracting the internal influence
of Particular Nature.
_Reason 3._ Invalid because it is sphericity of the sea and
not the lowness of the land which interferes with one's
view at sea.
_Reason 4._ Invalid because Water does not flow to the
tops of mountains, but ascends thither in the form of
vapors.
_Reason 5._ Invalid because Water imitating the moon in
one respect, need not imitate it in all.[61]

This brief obviously illustrates much more than the form of the
mediaeval Disputation. It leaves one in no doubt as to the difference
between the natural science of the Middle Ages and that of our own time.
It also illustrates the weakness of the scholastic method when applied
to questions which modern science would settle by experiment. The
argument abounds in misstatements of fact, the conclusion is incorrect,
and the "reasoning" by which it is reached can be described, from the
modern point of view, only as grotesque. The weakness of the method was
recognized by Roger Bacon so early as the thirteenth century. The
growing recognition of its futility finds repeated expression in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, notably in the New Method (Novum
Organum) of Francis Bacon.

Like the scholastic method and the worship of Aristotle, the Disputation
fell into disrepute because of the extravagant lengths to which it was
carried. The following sarcastic criticism by the Spanish scholar, Juan
Luis Vives (1462-1540), is one illustration of the growing revolt of his
times against it: